Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by detailing the return contents (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and how to use the url with other tools. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first sets scope and action, the second lists return fields and downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing return fields and pointing to query_layer/layer_info for next steps. Annotations cover safety and schema covers parameters, so this description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it and what to do with the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does contextualize 'query' as a keyword search and the overall purpose. Since the schema already documents query, limit, and org_id fully, the description's contribution here is minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('City of Houston GIS open geospatial datasets'), with examples of dataset types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that the output includes a Feature Service url to be passed to query_layer/layer_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: to discover datasets by keyword before querying them. It explicitly mentions downstream tools query_layer and layer_info, giving context on how to use the result. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative search methods, so it's not a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.